5 days ago
Phansi Ghar Row In Delhi Assembly Shows Distortion Of History For Political Gains
As custodians of public history, governments must tread carefully, balancing the emotional power of national memory with the ethical responsibility of truth-telling
The 'Phansi Ghar' controversy, along with debate on the floor of Delhi Assembly, has alleged that the ousted Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government led by Arvind Kejriwal created a false history about the heritage Old Secretariat building, saying that it housed hanging gallows and many prominent freedom fighters were hanged there. This has been disputed by the present Speaker Vijender Gupta and chief minister Rekha Gupta, who claim that a false impression was created about the two-storeyed tiffin room being a hanging house.
This contradiction has exposed how history can become a tool of political symbolism. For the AAP, a party that has tried to project itself as a custodian of revolutionary and anti-colonial legacies, associating the Old Secretariat with the martyrdom of freedom fighters served a powerful emotional and nationalist description of the building. Such accounts bolster public sentiment, especially among youth and marginalised communities who draw inspiration from tales of resistance. In declaring the site as a 'Phansi Ghar', the AAP government well attempted to transform a heritage administrative structure into a hallowed space of sacrifice and patriotic pride.
Such attempts risk distorting historical facts for political gains. History, which is always open to reinterpretation and enveloped meanings, must be grounded in verifiable facts. Manufacturing heritage through anecdotal evidence or politically convenient legends can undermine scholarly rigour and lead to the path of myth-making. The BJP government's rebuttal rests on the principle that history must be protected from partisan reinterpretations, especially when it relates to sensitive issues like freedom struggle and colonial oppression.
The issue also reveals the broader politics around public memory in contemporary India. In a postcolonial nation where symbols of resistance, martyrdom, and heritage carry deep emotional weight, competing political parties often seek to appropriate historical icons and sites to reinforce their ideological identity. Be it renaming streets, erecting statues, or redefining the purpose of a building, the past is often reimagined to suit the present political narrative.
Critics of Utpal Kumar—author of Eminent Distorians: Twists and Truths in Bharat's History—claim that his assessment of prominent historians, particularly those aligned with the Marxist or Nehruvian schools, reflects an agenda to delegitimise the established historiography post-Independence, which had focused on secular, class-based, and colonial critiques of Indian society. Now, the 'Phansi Ghar' controversy, in a way, upholds Kumar's justification of history being distorted to suit agenda.
The 'Phansi Ghar' debate, therefore, goes beyond the specifics of the Old Secretariat. It highlights the challenges of public history as to how historical narratives are constructed, disseminated, and contested in the public domain. With no authoritative body evaluate historical claims, political regimes often enjoy the liberty to promote their version of the past. This can be in short term politically empowering but dangerous in long term.
In this context, Kumar's book succeeds in triggering a much-needed conversation on historical objectivity and diversity of viewpoints, the polarised responses highlight the need for academic engagement over ideological battles. Rewriting history is not essentially challenging unless it replaces evidence with ideology.
In the same vein, the 'Phansi Ghar' controversy is illustrative of how deeply history and politics are intertwined in India. It is a reminder that heritage is not just about bricks and mortar but about the stories we choose to tell and also believe about ourselves. As custodians of public history, governments must tread carefully, balancing the emotional power of national memory with the ethical responsibility of truth-telling. The Old Secretariat's future as a heritage site now depends not on rhetoric but on rigorous historical engagement.
What this episode underlines is the urgent need for historical accuracy and responsible stewardship of public memory. If the AAP government had genuine evidence or oral histories to support their claim, they should have subjected it to academic scrutiny before institutionalising it.
Likewise, the BJP-led Delhi government must avoid merely opposing AAP's narrative for political point-scoring and instead promote research and documentation that clarifies the site's actual legacy. Which so far has not been forthcoming!
The writer is author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
aam aadmi party BJP freedom fighters Rekha Gupta
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
